Belief in God is rational.
Everything has a cause. So unless there is a first cause, then you would have an infinite regress. And then nothing could exist. Therefore there must be a first cause. Therefore God, the first cause, exists. QED. (You could prove the first step a priori that everything has a cause by noting that nothing can come from nothing. This makes it a priori, not just an empirical observation).

Translate

23.2.16

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a Tosphot "demain eved"

The Mishna in Bava Metzia 100a says when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The Gemara asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? Rav answered the money of a slave. Shmuel said a slave in his garment. Tosphot asks on the opinion of Rav how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this {Ideas in Bava Metzia chs 8 and 9} I mentioned that this question of Tosphot does not like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia. Rather Tosphot is going like the Gemara in Bava Batra. I mean to say that Tosphot here is saying that Sumchus would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the Gemara in Bava Batra. But in the beginning of Bava Metzia the Gemara concludes that if Sumchus said his din in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what Tosphot was doing. So fine Tosphot then finds a way to show the case of Rav is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.
But then we get to Shmuel. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of Shmuel. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of Shmuel.

What I wanted to say today was simply that Shmuel is going like the Gemara in the beginning of Bava Metzia in which holds the opinion that Sumchus said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not. That is to say that Rav and Shmuel are disagreeing about the opinion of Sumchus. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing Gemaras, one in Bava Metzia and the other in Bava Batra.

The משנה in בבא מציעא דף ק' ע''אsays when you have a seller and a buyer of a slave and they are both sure of their pleas then the seller takes an oath that he sold the smaller slave. When both are unsure then they divide. The גמרא asks but we don't take an oath on slaves? רב answered the money of a slave. שמואל said a slave in his garment. תוספות asks on the opinion of רב how can they divide? It is not דררא דממונא! In my notes on this I mentioned that this question of תוספות is not like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא. Rather תוספות is going like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. I mean to say that תוספות here is saying that סומכוס would not say to divide unless it is a case of דררא דממונא. This is like the גמרא in בבא בתרא. But in the beginning of בבא מציעא the גמרא concludes that if סומכוס said his דין in a case of דררא דממונא then all the more so would he say so in a case that is not דררא דממונא

This question had been bothering me for years. So I was very happy when I realized what תוספות was doing. So fine תוספות then finds a way to show the case of רב is one of דררא דממונא. There were witnesses that heard the agreement and saw money exchanged but did not see how much money was exchanged.But then we get to שמואל. I asked where is the דררא דממונא in the case of שמואל. No money was exchanged. For that is the whole point of שמואל.

What I wanted to say today was simply that שמואל is going like the גמרא in the beginning of בבא מציעא in which holds the opinion that סומכוס said his din in both cases--whether there is דררא דממונא or not. That is to say that רב and שמואל are disagreeing about the opinion of סומכוס. And this disagreement is reflected in these two opposing גמרות, one in בבא מציעא and the other in בבא בתרא.

There are still problems. Problem 1: In my notes I mention that the gemara here is depending on the gemara on page 97. This brings to mind the fact that even the gemara there is problematic. The Gemara there suggests perhaps the reason for the mishna is because certainty and doubt certainty is better. But the amazing question is that certainty and doubt certainty wins the case with no oath and the mishna says on 97 and also page 100 certainty wins with an oath! That is not the same thing!
Another stark problem is Tosphot Demai Eved. Tosphot asks "but it is not Drara DeManona?" The fact is that Tosphot is asking on Rav. That seems to mean that on the Mishna itself Tosphot would not have asked their question. That means Tosphot in OK if the question had been a large slave or a small slave.That apparently Tosphot would have accepted that it is Drara DeMamona. Only because Rav said the price of the slave is the question did Tosphot then ask "But it is not Drara Demmona."

Besides all that I looked over my notes on that Tosohot and this page of Gemara and I wrote things that today I do not understand. What did I mean "by dividing there is no difference between Sumchos and the Sages?" Was I referring to the idea of the Rashbam that when it is in one person's domain everyone agrees?
I also wrote on the question what about Shmuel? Tosphot answers the question where is the Drara DeMamona by Rav but never even raises the question by Shmuel. I answered this cryptic phrase maybe Tosphot would answer like they answered for Rav. But what ever I was thinking when I wrote that seems to be impossible. What ever Tosphot answered for Rav was because Rav was talking about an exchange of cash. You can not answer that Samuel is also talking about an exchange on currency because that is not the answer of Shmuel. [It might be that Tosphot is thinking that as long as the question is about physical objects like a garment of slave that that is Drara Demamona. Only the fact that Rav says the mishna refers to an exchange on money then the question comes up where is the Drara Demamina?] Or was I referring to the debate if Sumchus said his law in the case of both certainly and doubt or just one on page 100a?
In any case it is safe to say that I have not even begun to scratch the surface of this Tosphot and this page of Gemara.